Standing Committee C

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Fireworks Bill

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the Room.Clause 1 Introduction

Clause 1 - Introduction

Andrew Robathan: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in
clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out 'regulations' and insert 
 'order made by statutory instrument'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 4, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 11, at beginning insert— 
 '( ) no order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
 No. 1, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out 'may by regulations' and insert 
 'shall by order made by statutory instrument'.
 No. 2, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 3, at beginning insert— 
 '( ) no order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Andrew Robathan: As the Committee will know, the Opposition have no great problem with the Bill. Indeed, I applaud the work of the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) in promoting it. I hope that it will assist in making the lives of our constituents less noisy, and that it may help to reduce the upset and anguish that some people suffer as a result of firework noise.
 As the Minister knows, the Bill has little content; it merely allows the Government to make regulations. However, we have a philosophical objection to giving the Government too much power to make regulation—powers that may be abused in years to come. Therefore, the amendments propose that the Government make changes by statutory instrument, which should be placed before Parliament. That is not unreasonable. Nor is it a wrecking move. We simply want the Government to agree, so that if a future Government were ill-disposed to a sector of the fireworks industry, or for some other reason wished to introduce draconian measures, they would not be able to do so without coming before Parliament.

Melanie Johnson: I welcome you, Mr. Benton, to the Chair. I also welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in support of the Bill. I, too, express enthusiasm for the Bill.
 I clearly understand the philosophical point made by the hon. Gentleman. However, I am advised by parliamentary counsel that amendment No. 2 is different from the others. Only that amendment would have an effect on the Bill, in so far as it would lead to fireworks regulations being subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; they are currently subject to the negative procedure. Only that amendment would have the effect that the hon. Gentleman seeks, and that would happen under clause 16(3). 
 I am informed that amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 do not achieve anything; they are technically defective. I hope that hon. Members will not press me too much on the detail, but the reason is the interaction of the amendments with the wording of clause 16, which deals with the parliamentary procedure for making regulations. It is probably a technical matter. 
 If the hon. Gentleman and others are concerned about the powers that the Bill would give the Government and wish to table further amendments in lieu of amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4, or if they want the Government to deal with the matter on Report, we shall be as helpful as we can. However, I am happy to accept amendment No. 2 if the Committee so desires. As I say, it would make orders subject to the affirmative resolution procedure that would otherwise have been subject to the negative procedure. 
 I turn to the previous private Member's Bill on fireworks, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). The concerns that were expressed at that time have already been addressed. Clause 1(2) and clause 14(3) provide powers to introduce regulations. The regulations that existed at the time that the previous Bill was discussed are those that were thought to cause problems. The regulations are now secure. 
 Regulations under those powers are to be subject to affirmative procedure. It may be that some of the difficulties or potential concerns that the hon. Member for Blaby has just outlined are addressed by different drafting in the present Bill. That addresses part of the problem. 
 I am happy to accept amendment No. 2 and to look at the need for further amendments. However, amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 cannot be accepted.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the Minister for her very reasonable stand on the matter. As she will know, the Opposition do not necessarily have the benefit of extensive parliamentary counsel assistance. If it is the view of parliamentary counsel that amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are defective, I understand that they will not be allowable. Given that, and her reasonable assurance that, if necessary, she will come forward on Report with amendments to the Bill, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I ask that she write to me and other members of the Committee so we shall know exactly what will happen on Report.
 I shall not press the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Power to make regulations about fireworks

Amendment made: No. 2, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 3, at beginning insert— 
 '( ) no order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Robathan.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Ross Cranston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South on introducing the Bill and taking it this far. I want to raise an issue about subsection (2). Subsection (1) says that the regulations are for securing that there is no risk that the use of fireworks will have certain consequences. In subsection (2), those consequences are spelt out. The first area is to do with death, injury and alarm. There is great concern about the antisocial behaviour associated with fireworks. If I catch your eye later, Mr. Benton, I will say something about that when we discuss clause 4.
 The second area deals with injury or distress to animals; that is a great concern. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which has done so much good work on the Bill, has said that it costs around £27,000 to train a guide dog but that four have to be retired every year due to stress. I know that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have received petitions. I received a petition containing about 1,500 signatures from a veterinary practice in Dudley, Black and Partners. 
 I have a question for the Minister about the third area, which concerns 
''destruction of, or damage to, property.''
 Does she accept that, where the word ''damage'' is used, it includes potential damage? I have been shown large rockets by trading standards in my constituency. I have also seen rockets that were exhibited by the chairman of the Black Country Chamber of Commerce, Mike Holder, containing large pieces of aluminium, other metals and plastics. Those pieces fall from the sky. I have had no reports that they have caused damage in my constituency. However, there is potential for damage. I should like to be assured that the regulations could cover potential damage—damage that may be caused by those fireworks raining down from the sky. The regulations may, for example, limit the use of large aluminium or plastic pieces in rockets.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. and learned Friend says that he is not aware of injuries having occurred in his constituency but I echo his great concern. People may be in their gardens when debris from a large firework comes down. Last November, my local newspaper covered many near-miss incidents. There were photos showing how far the debris was embedded in the soil. If the person had been closer, they would have suffered a serious injury. When I was driving one icy night, debris from a firework hit my car bonnet, which was quite scary, so again there is a lot of potential for damage.

Ross Cranston: I have never been subjected to such damage by my constituents, but my hon. Friend makes my point for me. There is potential for damage, so I should like an assurance that the legislation would cover potential as well as actual damage. That may lead to controls on the type of materials that could be used in fireworks.

Shona McIsaac: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. It is great to see the Bill reach Committee today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South on the enormous efforts that he has made to achieve consensus on the Bill, and on bringing people together to get it this far. Some people may like the legislation to go a little further and others do not want it to go as far, but my hon. Friend must be congratulated on the way in which he has achieved consensus.
 I do not know whether people in the Room are aware that today is special not only because we are in Committee but because it is international noise awareness day. It is therefore an apt day on which to debate the Fireworks Bill. I shall touch on some of the problems relating to noise and why it is vital that we accept clause 2. I am referring to the provision on the death of animals and injury or distress to animals. A vast number of people bring to our attention the injury and distress that is caused not only to pets but to livestock. Farmers in my constituency have been affected, and there is a particular problem with horses in stables. 
 The problem is across the board but I shall focus on one case that illustrates why we must toughen the law on fireworks: Warwick the guide dog. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has been very involved in supporting the Bill. Warwick, who was owned by Derek Thorpe, had to be retired because of fireworks. He was not injured by a firework. A firework was thrown at him and exploded between his paws. However, the noise of the firework meant that the dog had to be retired. 
 As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) said, a phenomenal investment goes into a guide dog. Derek lost his companion, his ''eyes'', because after the firework exploded the dog was so traumatised by loud noises such as clapping or a door slamming that he could no longer do his job effectively. Although no injury was caused to Warwick, the effect was traumatic for both Warwick and Derek.

Andrew Selous: I wonder whether the hon. Lady can help me with something about which I am still not clear. She talks about noise in relation to guide dogs. I remember referring on Second Reading to the fact that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has advised that a 95 dB level should be the acceptable noise level for fireworks. It says that any noise up to 95 dB does not harm animals, but noise over that level is of serious concern. Can the hon. Lady assure me that a 95 dB level will become part of the Bill? It is important to talk about noise in a measurable way, so we know exactly what we are talking about. If she is unable to help me, perhaps the Minister or the hon.
 Member for Hamilton, South may be able to give me further illumination later.

Shona McIsaac: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was gradually directing his question away from me and towards my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South or the Minister. However, he is right to say that there is a serious debate to be had about noise levels, and many hon. Members will agree that noise and decibel levels is the key issue. There is a variety of opinion, but the Department of Trade and Industry must examine the research by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on noise levels and when noise starts to cause damage.

Paul Truswell: Although I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), should we not point him to his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Blaby, who I recollect referred to the RSPCA document on Second Reading and rubbished the idea of a 95 dB limit? I urge the hon. Gentleman to persuade the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to adopt the sensible attitude that he has just described.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend has adequately demonstrated that there is a debate to be had.

Andrew Robathan: Apparently, 95 dB is the equivalent of hearing a book dropped on to a desk from three metres.

Huw Irranca-Davies: A large book.

Shona McIsaac: A very large book.

Andrew Robathan: Indeed, a very large book. The point is whether Labour Members want to campaign for that, which is their right if they want to do so. We all have enormous sympathy with people such as Derek who lose their guide dog because of such action. However, will the hon. Lady confirm that the action of throwing a firework in the street is currently illegal and that the Bill as drafted will do nothing to prevent such a firework being thrown?

Shona McIsaac: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation that the Bill will do nothing about the throwing of fireworks, as adequate measures in it come together to do that. It is usually young people who are guilty of that offence, and the Bill addresses that issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South will address that point far more eloquently than I can.
 The hon. Member for Blaby said that 95 dB equalled the noise of a book being dropped from three metres, but we must also consider the levels of background noise. During the day, the book dropping would perhaps not be so disturbing, but in the quiet of the night, it is much more noticeable. We must consider those aspects when the relevant statutory instrument on noise is drafted, take into account the RSPCA research and work in consultation with other noise experts.

Michael Weir: I do not know about other hon. Members, but I am beginning to get
 distressed about this debate on noise. I do not know whether the hon. Lady agrees, but clause 2 says that fireworks carry the risk of, among other things, causing
''injury or distress to animals'',
 which must cover noise as well as physical injury from fireworks. We are getting somewhat sidetracked with the argument about noise, which will have to be dealt with by regulations.

Shona McIsaac: That is what I am saying. There will have to be a serious debate at that stage, and it would be remiss of us if we did not mention the issue of noise. Noise combined with distress to animals is the main theme in my postbag and the main focus of everyone who has come to see me about the issue of fireworks. Five or six years ago, the main focus of the debate on fireworks was properly on injuries, but it has moved on because of the recognition of antisocial behaviour related to fireworks—a serious issue in our communities, which must be addressed. Members of the Committee cannot ignore the debate about noise, otherwise we will not address the concerns of our constituents.
 I talked about the case of Derek Thorpe and his guide dog Warwick, which encapsulates why we are here today, as it shows the distress caused to an animal and the effect that it had on its owner. I carry very large handbags, and have brought a photograph of Warwick to the Committee. It happens to be on a bottle of beer, for which I hope the Committee will forgive me. It is made to raise funds for guide dogs for the blind. Poor old Warwick had to be retired because of fireworks. I shall not open the bottle in case I scare people with the noise. 
 Death, distress or injury to animals and to people, and the destruction of property encapsulate the antisocial behaviour aspect of the misuse of fireworks, and it is important that we approve the clause and get the Bill through Committee today and back to the House of Commons so that, as I hope, it will become law as soon as possible. We can then end the distress and prevent other guide dogs from having to be retired early as a result of thoughtless hooliganism.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South on getting his private Member's Bill this far. It is recognition of the work that he and the all-party group on fireworks have done. I place on record the work of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which other hon. Members mentioned, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Age Concern and other organisations that have worked strenuously for many years to bring this issue to the fore in Parliament.
 I also place on record the 22,000 petitioners from south Wales, the 80,000 petitioners from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association—I understand that that figure has increased since and could be increased even further in south Wales—and the personal and committed support of various newspapers throughout south Wales, such as the Gazette, the South Wales Evening Post, the Western Mail, and others which have 
 committed much time and energy to promote the issue and to encourage people to write letters. About 150 letters have been received, which reflect all the concerns to which subsections (2)(a), (b) and (c) relate: injuries, fright to animals and to the elderly, and the destruction of property. 
 It is worth mentioning the incident that spurred me to take part in the debate. Shortly after being elected in February 2002—long after 5 November—a rocket was propelled through the window of an elderly resident in my constituency whom I knew personally, and broke the window. Thankfully it did not set fire to the curtains, although that has happened in other incidents. That reflects a telephone call that I received from the managing director of what was the largest wholesaler of fireworks in south Wales. I thought that he had rung to berate me for my support for this campaign, only to be told that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the RSPCA and I were absolutely right: things have changed; fireworks are louder, the incidents of misuse on the streets are much more prevalent nowadays, and something must be done.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman talks about the incident in his constituency of a rocket going through a window. Only a couple of months ago, the same thing happened in my constituency in Leighton Buzzard. I referred to that event on Second Reading. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Bill, as it goes through Parliament, will stop the sale of the rockets that can be fired as missiles and seriously injure, if not cause a fatality among our constituents? I am not clear about that, and if he cannot assure me, perhaps the Minister or the hon. Member for Hamilton, South can give me further clarification.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is complimentary in holding up for me the prospect of a ministerial position. However, I shall defer to my hon. Friend the Minister to answer the question. There is scope for such deliberations when we discuss the regulations that will follow from the Bill.

Bill Tynan: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I expected to kick off the proceedings, but I erred. In analysing each clause of the Bill, we must recognise the importance of noise. I have had many conversations in the past three or four months about how we should deal with it. There is no decibel limit in legislation. Over the past four or five years, a European standard of 120 dB has been discussed. I met representatives of the RSPCA this morning to discuss its ''Quiet Please'' report. It had intended to seek amendments to the Bill that would require it to specify a level lower than 120 dB. Our discussion took place on the basis that, as has been said, I have sought to be consensual and to gain as much support for the Bill as possible, and to pressurise the Minister to ensure that the Bill is relevant to the people whom we represent. It is an enabling Bill that will allow the introduction of statutory instruments based on the needs of our constituents.
 Noise is an important issue. There is scope in clause 2 to introduce a decibel limit, but that will be done on the basis that we seek to persuade the British Fireworks Association that it can produce quieter 
 fireworks and the RSPCA that it can accept higher than 95 dB. To that end, the RSPCA proposes to give a display of quiet fireworks, to which I extend an invitation to every member of the Committee. I hope that we shall be able to see the effect of that demonstration, and that it will involve all parties, including the BFA. Perhaps it could be persuaded to change the construction of fireworks so that they are quieter to use and to watch.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I sat down prematurely, Mr. Benton. Subsection (3) gives me the opportunity to ask about consultation with the various groups whose interests will be affected. Mention has been made of fireworks manufacturers. Would he consider it apposite to consult not only groups representing the elderly and organisers of displays—such as local authorities and church groups—but youth groups, which will also have an interest in the legislation? He might also be able to comment on subsection (3)(c), which mentions
''other persons whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult''.
 It would be useful if he could clarify, now or on Report, who they are.

Bill Tynan: It is important to make progress. I can imagine filling Hampden Park—that is a football stadium in Scotland—with interested parties. It is important for the main players to be involved in the discussion. That includes those to whom I have spoken in the past three or four months; I would not exclude anybody who wanted to take the opportunity to contribute. If we make the consultation too protracted, we may end up with no legislation on the issue of noise, which would be a tragedy. I have spoken to the British Fireworks Association, the RSPCA, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Blue Cross, Help the Aged and other organisations with an interest in the issue. As I am sure the Minister will make clear when she responds, the sensible way forward would be to reach a consensus about the decibel level that has the least effect on animals and the elderly. If we can do that, we shall have taken a major step forward, although we may not have achieved the full loaf. That is how we should proceed on the clause, but the Minister will want to make her position clear.
 Noise is a major issue. In its ''Quiet Please'' report, the RSPCA recognises the fact that changing the construction of fireworks may result in a lower decibel level. I would hate to see the British Fireworks Association start a lobbying campaign, with Opposition parties asking for opposition to the Bill on the basis that we were injuring the industry. It is therefore important that we reach a consensus, and an attempt has been made to do that as regards the noise level. The clause is a way forward, and I hope that the Minister will listen to the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon.

Michael Weir: I did not intend to say anything about the clause, but I want to support the hon. Member for Hamilton, South. He talked about consensus, and his success in achieving it can be gauged by the fact that he
 has managed to get members of the Labour party in Scotland and members of the Scottish National party to agree with one another on the eve of the Scottish parliamentary elections. That is a major achievement.
 Clause 2 is the crux of the Bill. We shall deal later with clauses that prohibit supplying young persons with certain fireworks in certain circumstances, but the regulations in the clause will be at the heart of controlling the noise and damage that fireworks may cause. The types of firework that can be supplied to anyone, and the way in which they are used, are the crux of the problem. 
 As has been rightly said, noise is a great problem. I represent Angus, which has a long association with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. The association has a centre in Forfar, and the community has many ties to guide dogs. There is great concern about the difficulties that they face, not only once they are being used but during their training. 
 Noise is a year-round problem. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) talked about a rocket coming in through someone's window, and I had a complaint from a constituent last week about the misuse of fireworks. It is April, but fireworks are being misused. That demonstrates the extent of the problem—it affects people all year round. I therefore very much support the clause in its present form. 
 I fully recognise that the clause gives the Minister powers. We shall find out how effective it is once we see the regulations, but we must first get to that stage. Like the hon. Member for Hamilton, South, I would be worried if we became bogged down in the nitty-gritty at this stage. Let us get the principle on the statute book—we can argue about the nitty-gritty of the regulations thereafter.

Paul Truswell: I was not intending to speak, but I am concerned that certain hon. Members do not realise that constituents such as mine think that the issue of noise is crucial to the Bill. I may be condemned as a noise zealot throughout our proceedings, but I do not mind that label. It is clear from the correspondence that I receive from constituents, and from campaigns conducted by many newspapers, including the excellent Yorkshire Evening Post in my area, that the crux of the issue is noise, noise and noise again.
 I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South wants to make progress; that is absolutely right. His Bill contains a wonderful raft of measures, which will allow us to tackle almost every aspect of the abuse and use of fireworks. I wish him good luck and I thank him for introducing it. 
 At the end of the day, however, people's main concern is noise. I have tried to retain my objectivity, but on far too many occasions through the year my family and I—we have two young boys—are subjected to the activities of an amateur pyrotechnician in our area who sets off unguided missiles and causes enormous problems. Whether the Government introduce curfews or licences, or restrict the period of use, we shall come up against the rocks of experience; and those rocks tell us that enforcement 
 will always be difficult. That is why I am a fully fledged zealot on the issue of tackling noise through a statutory noise limit on fireworks that are available for use by the general public. However we try to restrict the way in which fireworks are used, enforcement is always a problem. If we introduce a statutory noise limit, the problem will be tackled at source and we shall not have to rely on the police, environmental offices or whomsoever is given the responsibility for enforcement.

Bill Tynan: Although we could have a debate about the noise levels that we could set, does my hon. Friend accept that if, on the basis of, say, the ''Quiet Please'' report, we set the noise level at 95 dB and we lost the Bill, that would be a major problem in dealing with fireworks? If so, does my hon. Friend accept that everything will depend on the Minister's implementation of the clause to the full, on the basis of the concerns that he and others have expressed?

Paul Truswell: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. To make my position clear, I do not intend to pursue a specific noise limit in Committee. Rather, I wish to add my voice to those of people who are concerned about the matter, yet who do want a statutory noise limit. I am therefore using the opportunity presented by discussion on this clause to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that when she acquires the powers that are embodied in the Bill she will need to consult widely on reasonable and sensible statutory noise limits.
 A 120 dB limit is not at all reasonable or sensible. I understand that that level, which the European Union perhaps advocates, is the equivalent of a jet aircraft at 100 m or a loud car horn 1 m. It is far too loud. That is why I am attracted by the RSPCA's ''Quiet Please'' campaign, although that is not because it focuses on 95 dB, but because it gives us a starting point. Our constituents want the control of noise to be the prime consideration of the House of Commons in dealing with fireworks, which is why that campaign should be a starting point. We should at least be able to tell our constituents why 95 dB is not appropriate, reasonable or consensual, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South suggested it was not. 
 I shall leave my comments at that. I make a plea to the Minister to err on the side of people in the community and animals when discharging the powers that the Bill will give, and to consider seriously imposing a statutory noise limit that is closer to, if not exactly the same as, the 95 dB limit that the RSPCA advocated in its excellent report than it is to the absolutely nonsensical limit of 120 dB that has been suggested from Europe.

Melanie Johnson: I welcome the issues that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have raised on the clause.
 Noise was mentioned in many contributions. I have met the RSPCA. Indeed, I commended it on producing the document entitled ''Quiet Please—Loud fireworks frighten animals'' and on working to reduce the alarm and distress caused to animals by fireworks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and others graphically 
 described. We have asked the explosives section of the Health and Safety Executive to consider further the report that was produced and two other recent reports on firework noise that the RSPCA work mentions. 
 I do not want to get technical or be drawn into technical arguments, but my hon. Friend talked about background noise with regard to how loud a noise seems. Other issues include proximity—whether it is a one-off or repeated noise, the environment in which it takes place and whether the noise can escape naturally. I must inform my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), who by his own description is a noise zealot, that noise and the measurement of it is a complicated matter. It also involves the measurement of the distance between the sound source and the measuring apparatus. We want to look into the issues in more detail. 
 At present, we are not at the stage of debating a decibel limit. However, I hope that we are at the stage where the House of Commons gives us powers to deal with the issues in more detail later by statutory instrument. I therefore advise members of the Committee not to get too hooked on specific figures, but to consider matters objectively. We should bear in mind the wise advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South that we must move forward on a consensual basis. 
 I am sure that much improvement can be achieved. We hope to have continuing discussions with the HSE and the RSPCA on those issues. The BFA needs to be involved in those discussions because obviously there are technical questions about the current levels for fireworks, whether those relate to 120 or 95 dB on whatever method of measurement. We must consider these matters in much more detail, based on a clear analysis of the right way of measuring and considering levels and of how we move forward. I agree that noise is perhaps the key issue in the distress that fireworks cause to human beings and animals.

Paul Truswell: If my hon. Friend will indulge me in my zealotry, could she say how a scenario might develop whereby, through regulations, it could be dictated whether a firework with a noise level of, say, 120 dB was set off next door to someone's house or in a field half a mile away?

Melanie Johnson: Obviously one cannot do that, as my hon. Friend is well aware. There is nothing absolute about sound. Where and how it is measured, and the environment in which it takes place, make a huge difference to its impact on humans and animals. The industry has indicated that the forthcoming 5 November period should be about 30 million bangs quieter as a result of the voluntary air bomb ban that it put in place last year in respect of manufacture. I trust that we can look forward to a quieter fireworks season in any event, without further issues being addressed, but we will come to address those issues.
 My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North asked about the threat of destruction and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes also talked about that. As things stand, the measure covers only damage, not potential damage. My hon. and 
 learned Friend is right to raise the question, but it is difficult to regulate against a potential—given his background, he will fully understand that. The Bill does mention minimum risk, but current British standards and forthcoming European standards put a limit on the size and weight of debris from fireworks. There are other ways of tackling the problem, and I trust that those standards will have the sort of impact that he is looking for. It is a concern that I share. 
 I turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire that clause 5 would allow us to control the supply of certain fireworks, which could include fireworks that are widely misused. However, we must be careful not to restrict supply of certain fireworks that should otherwise be available because of the actions of a hooligan element. Again, we need to strike a balance and arrive at consensus. 
 Of course, the fixed penalty regime for antisocial behaviour, and its application to the under-18s as well as to the over-18s, could be considered when dealing with future control of fireworks, notwithstanding the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. I agree with him that it is better to control the difficulty than to end up having to enforce the rules. However, key elements in our attempts to improve the situation will ultimately rely on enforcement—however much we may try to prevent the need for enforcement by making the conditions and the regulations right in the first place. I commend the clause to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Prohibition of supply etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ross Cranston: I raise another issue about the regulations that may be contemplated under subsection (2). The possibility of regulations limiting the type of fireworks sold to young people comes under clause 3, which is important to deal with antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for Blaby was right to say that that is already prohibited under the Explosives Act 1875. For instance, under that Act, one cannot throw fireworks in public places such as in the road. One would have thought that that, coupled with the penalty notice provisions recently introduced by the Government, gave us effective control over that sort of antisocial behaviour.
 Hon. Members will appreciate that we have a problem with enforcement—one has to catch the people. It is important that we deal with the problem of possession. Clause 3 deals with young people in possession of fireworks. They can be caught even though the police have not seen them throwing the fireworks and engaging in antisocial behaviour; they 
 can be caught with the fireworks in their pockets. By way of digression, there are all sorts of legal problems about the issue of possession, but if the fireworks are found in someone's pocket, there is no problem. However, the question is how to take regulations beyond the prohibition contemplated in clause 3—possession by people under a certain age—and address other situations where there may be possession. 
 We know, for example, that old people buy alcohol and give it to young people, so young people are not necessarily prevented from having it. They cannot buy it if shopkeepers are enforcing the law but they can get it anyway. We can deal with that issue of possession but what regulations is the Minister contemplating to deal with other sorts of possession? Subsection (1) talks about possession 
''during hours of the day''.
 One could imagine a regulation that would make it an offence for people to have fireworks between the hours of 2 and 6 am. What has been considered? 
 It may be unfair to ask the Minister that question because antisocial behaviour is a question more for the Home Office. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who recently resigned as Minister with responsibility for policing, answered some questions that I tabled earlier this year. He was conducting a monitoring exercise through several pilot projects in different parts of the country. However, I ask the question because possession is crucial to stopping antisocial behaviour. It is all very well prohibiting sales to certain people but possession must be dealt with. Therefore, it would be useful to know what regulations may be contemplated under subsection (2).

Melanie Johnson: I appreciate the point made by my hon. and learned Friend, and we need to consider the issues further. Indeed, I would like to think further and write to him, because we must decide whether the matters should be dealt with by regulations under this Bill or by an antisocial behaviour Bill and provisions for fixed penalties. My understanding is that alcohol can be confiscated from minors, and a parallel provision is clearly possible.
 Although I understand why my hon. and learned Friend is concerned about possession, the main problem is use and abuse. We must ensure, first, that the system has sufficient deterrents to mean that fireworks are not supplied and, secondly, that we have the enforcement powers to deal with the misuse of fireworks by anyone who is defined as under age in legislation.

Michael Weir: I raise just a small point of difficulty in relation to dealing with the matter in an antisocial behaviour Bill. My understanding is that such provisions would not apply in Scotland, so the Scottish Parliament would have to pass separate legislation to deal with the particular difficulties of possession. Although I am not opposed to that, it may lead to different interpretations north and south of the border on the possession of fireworks. That should be
 considered when deciding the best way to deal with the problem.

Melanie Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks, and I shall take that into consideration as well.

Ross Cranston: I perhaps did not explain myself properly. Subsection (2) says that regulations under the Bill may prohibit persons from supplying and exposing for supply, which covers the shop and its displays. They may also cover purchasing, which means that certain persons will not be able to buy fireworks, as with young people under clause 3. My point is that they may still have them, so possession is crucial for enforcement. The police or trading standards representatives may not see young people buy the fireworks—their older brothers and sisters may have bought them—but they may still have them. That is why possession is so important.

Melanie Johnson: I believe that I understood the point that was made by my hon. and learned Friend. As I said, I will take it away and consider it. However, I reiterate that the aim is to stop supply, so far as it is possible to do so. My intuition is that the vast majority of those who are supplied through whatever illegal route is used will mostly cause immediate disruption in their communities rather than simply walking along the street with large quantities of fireworks in their possession. Young people in particular get hold of fireworks and use them soon after to cause neighbourhood disruption.
Several hon. Members rose—

Melanie Johnson: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we consider the detailed regulations, we must reward good retailers and suppliers of fireworks, as we reward good retailers of off licence products and solvents? Up to now, fireworks have been regarded as something that can be put in the shop front and sold, hopefully to those who are not under age. Currently, if they are sold in the knowledge that they will be passed to people who will use them recklessly, the belief is, ''So what?'' We need to reward the good retailers and to stamp out those who sell fireworks in the knowledge that they will be passed to those who will use them recklessly and cause the problems that we are discussing. Fireworks are explosives and must be dealt with in the same way as other substances that can harm people in our communities are dealt with.

Melanie Johnson: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson).

John Robertson: My understanding is that the police must see the individual misuse the fireworks. I do not know whether we should be examining firework law or some other law but, surely under ordinary criminal law, if a member of the public sees a youth misusing a firework, that should be capable of being used as evidence against that youth. I have a problem with people being stopped in the street for the simple reason that they are carrying something that they may have bought legitimately and without their having caused a
 problem elsewhere. We go down a difficult road when we can start to stop and search anyone who is walking along the street for any reason.

Melanie Johnson: I understand my hon. Friend's points. I am also minded to recognise the more general concerns expressed by hon. Members and to consider further how these issues may be dealt with. I am grateful to all those who have raised those points with me.
 On the question of responsible retailing and what happens on retail premises, in many cases it is not the responsible retailers who are at fault, but unauthorised and possibly unlicensed outlets. Fireworks can make their way to the likes of car boot sales and other unofficial places of sale, and we must find a way of ensuring that fireworks are tracked through the system and go to places that are licensed to sell them and are appropriate for storage.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend may recall that I drew her attention on another occasion to the case of a licensed retailer whose shop is open all year round. The flyer that advertises it states that it offers free alcohol to adults and free sweets to the kids. Can anything be done to stop such incentives on flyers?

Melanie Johnson: We want to work with the industry and those in retailing on campaigns that focus on responsible retailing and that strongly emphasise the desirability of people signing up to a code of practice, which is currently only voluntary but which the legislation would enable us to give more force to. That will be another advantage of the Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Prohibition of supply etc. of certain fireworks

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Robathan: The clause is particularly relevant to the supply of large fireworks for displays and to people who might have been trained. I should like to return to the issue of noise, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes. I am sure that she did not mean to say that antisocial behaviour and noise had increased since 1997, although her remarks highlighted the law of unintended consequences. The supply of bangers was banned in 1997 by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths). That appears to have led to a large increase in the use of airbombs. The Minister has referred to the fact that a voluntary ban on airbombs will take something like 10 million bangs out of the market in the coming year. What does she intend to prohibit under this clause, given that airbombs are probably the biggest problem and they will be disappearing from the streets in the coming months?

Melanie Johnson: It is difficult to say at this point, because the regulations have not been discussed in detail. When one thing is banned, there is a danger
 that something else will take its place. I therefore commend the fact that the Bill empowers the Government to issue regulations to deal with things as they develop; that is the advantage of not including specifics in primary legislation. I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes about noise: because the cost of fireworks has come down and the number of bangs has gone up, fireworks are reaching young people who can get a large number of loud bangs for their pocket money, and use them as a way of disrupting communities. The airbomb ban will make a huge difference, because airbombs have become a substitute for bangers.
 In consequence of our discussions about the importance of noise, we shall look again at the measures in order to ensure that we do not end up with a further substitute. The industry is equally concerned to ensure that the public can enjoy fireworks at sensible noise levels without suffering the sort of disruption that takes place at the moment. It is keen to work with us and with the other relevant organisations. Those who are concerned with the measures, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South, are working to ensure that fireworks are produced at a reasonable cost—in packs rather than singly, for example—and that future firework production will conform with any measure we introduce to deal with noise.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Subsection (4) relates to
''the satisfactory completion of a course, or courses, of training''.
 I was caught up in something of a firefight over the issue of noise when we debated who should be consulted under clause 2. I know that the Minister will consult the Health and Safety Executive and other advisers. Can I ask her to take soundings from independent retailers associations? 
 This is a welcome subsection. It is necessary for retailers to have appropriate training so that responsible retailers are rewarded. However, I would not want onerous duties or the time or money spent on training to put a local retailer on the corner in Pontycymer out of business. That retailer services the needs of the community by providing good, responsible fun with fireworks.

Melanie Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. The clause could, for example, be used to prevent anyone who had not satisfactorily passed a training course from being supplied with some types are fireworks. I do not think that the application of the clause in relation to training is related to supply so much as to use. However, there might be some training issues to do with whether people have a sufficient understanding to ensure that the fireworks are satisfactorily stored and sold.
 I take my hon. Friend's point about consulting widely, which we want to do. Consultations normally consist of several months of discussion with interested parties. Bearing in mind the points that my hon. Friend made, I shall try to alert all groups that might be interested in responding. Given the number of groups interested in the matter, as well as the number of hon. Members, I am sure that there will be wide engagement in any future discussions.

Michael Weir: I have one small point about subsection (4), which also mentions insurance cover against liability. If, in dealing with that matter, the Minister can specify training courses, will she also give help on insurance to those undertaking such courses? It is becoming increasingly difficult for even well-organised displayers to get appropriate public liability insurance. As she knows, that problem affects many businesses, but it also affects fireworks displayers. In a recent case, a well-organised fireworks displayer in my constituency who had operated for many years without incident had great difficulty in obtaining suitable public liability insurance to allow the display to continue.

Melanie Johnson: The insurance that people obtain is a matter for them and their organisations, but I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. When my children were much younger, they and my family were frequently the beneficiaries of the fireworks display at a local school. The parent teacher association or the school needed cover of the kind that the hon. Gentleman talked about to run the display. There will be more reassurance for those providing insurance cover as a result of the measures that the Bill is likely to make possible. Those measures can only result in more rather than less reasonable insurance premiums, because the more concern and risk there is, the more people will want to increase the premium. At the end of the day, however, it is a matter of what insurance cover individuals can obtain.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Licensing of suppliers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bill Tynan: I wish to investigate licensing. I am concerned that local authorities and trading standards officers now grant permits at £13. I would hope that the intention behind the Bill is for someone who wishes to sell fireworks to apply to a local authority, which would supply a licence. At present a licence or permit that has been granted cannot be revoked or refused the following year even if there is a breach of the regulations in, say, the manner of storage. I want the Minister's assurance that local authorities will be given the powers to refuse, revoke or rescind a licence if any conditions are breached during the licensing period.
 Because of the different cultures that we have in this country, I also want there to be the possibility of higher-tier licences. That would mean that any retailer who wanted to sell fireworks all year round would have to meet stringent conditions and pay a higher licence fee. If we do not do that, we will allow the current situation to continue: people will be able to get hold of fireworks without any just reason, thus continuing the growth in antisocial behaviour, so it is important to get the licensing system right through the local authorities. 
 I know that new regulations on the manufacture and storage of explosives, which are due to be introduced in 2004, may be a suitable vehicle for that, but local authorities will want the scope to grant a cheaper licence to people who want to sell for only a limited period of time during the year. That should be addressed.

Ross Cranston: This is an important clause because vacant shops in Dudley suddenly open to sell fireworks without any attempt to comply with a voluntary code. I am sure that other Members have experienced similar cases in their constituencies. There is also the problem of car-boot sales. The clause is properly drafted and will cover, in subsection (3), the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes about incentives. They could be limited in the conditions imposed on licensees.
 I want to draw the Committee's attention to clause 7(2)(c), which refers to conditions and the time of year. This point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South. Other hon. Members may, like me, have received a letter from Councillor John McNicholas, of Coventry city council, in which he makes a point that is also appropriate to Dudley. He notes that the west midlands is a multicultural region and that different ethnic minority groups have festivals at different times of the year. Licences will have to be granted in different regions at different times of the year to take into account that cultural diversity. Clause 7(2)(c) seems wide enough to cover that, and I simply want the Minister's confirmation that regulations could be drafted to cover the problem I mentioned earlier.

John Robertson: I have received representations from Glasgow city council, which is the biggest in Scotland and one of the biggest in the UK. It said that the only way to ensure proper licensing is through local councils. It supports the Bill fully but feels that local councils must have a say on all licensing. That will mean that records can be kept locally and the licences dealt with properly.
 Will the Minister also consider mail order and internet selling? I appreciate that the internet is a grey area that is difficult to govern, but mail order in Britain will be covered by some licensing. They are both grey areas where people who try to avoid the law often operate. Will she comment on that?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have two brief points for the Minister's consideration. The first is to welcome the fact that these licences, as is the case with liquor licences, will be for named individuals rather than premises, so that representations can be made on the unworthiness of a certain individual.
 Secondly, will the Minister give further consideration to the revocation of licences, which is an important part of the clause, and the possible scope for temporary revocation? If there were evidence of selling to underage or undesirable people, I would fully agree with revoking the licence permanently. However, if the problem is a minor, technical one in respect of health and safety—perhaps involving storage or security—there may be some scope for a temporary 
 revocation, in the way that restaurants and cafeterias with environmental health problems are dealt with.

Melanie Johnson: The Explosives Act 1875 deals with the storage requirements for explosives, including fireworks. However, it does not allow for a differentiation among fireworks. That distinction is lacking, so it is open to any retailer to stock and sell both the largest and smallest available fireworks. That has been a cause of concern to enforcement authorities and safety organisations for some time. I know from the comments that hon. Members have made that it is also of concern to the Committee. Clause 7 allows for the introduction of a licensing system, relating to both retailers and their premises, for the sale of fireworks, or particular types of fireworks.
 That will be a helpful distinction. We believe that licensing will be a solution to many of the problems relating to the sale of the fireworks. Therefore, I agree that we need to examine the issue, but we must also be careful that regulations are not too prescriptive, and that they do not place undue burdens on the retailers or local authorities that will have to operate them. I bear in mind the enthusiasm of the Glasgow authorities when considering local authority involvement in those schemes. 
 We have been thinking about the best way of enacting the provisions, and my officials have had several discussions with representatives of the local authority co-ordinators of regulatory services. Discussions have also taken place with some of the representative bodies of retailers. We need to ensure that we do not create new requirements that will place additional burdens on retailers or enforcement bodies. We have been working with the Health and Safety Executive—

Bill Tynan: I wish to address the issue of additional expense. If the local authority were able to recover funds through the cost of the licence, we would avoid a position in which there would be additional expense for the authority. Would that not represent the best way forward?

Melanie Johnson: My hon. Friend is suggesting some practical answers that may well be implemented. However, we need to bear in mind that we do not want to put additional burdens on retailers or enforcement bodies. We are working with the Health and Safety Executive, which is currently reviewing the manufacture and storage of explosives regulations, to ascertain whether those regulations could meet the Bill's requirements. I understand that the current revision of those regulations will offer a cost-recoverable licence or storage fee, which would be dependent on the number of fireworks that the retailer wishes to store. Local authority licensing authorities will be able to refuse and revoke licenses if a retailer is deemed to be unfit. I bear in mind the points that were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for Ogmore.

Bill Tynan: I wish to explore the position of the manufacture and storage of explosives regulations. Am I right in saying that they apply to a certain
 quantity, and if that quantity were less than a tonne of fireworks, the regulations would not be applicable?

Melanie Johnson: My hon. Friend, who has been studying these matters carefully, may well be right. I do not have the figure in front of me, but I will converse with him later about that matter. The revocation of a licence could also happen if there were a breach of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Therefore, there is more than one avenue to go down. Breaches might include storing too many fireworks on the premises, or storing them in the wrong type of container.
 The regulations do not currently allow us to refuse or revoke a licence if a retailer has sold fireworks to someone under 18, or has broken other consumer retail legislation. Both the ability to refuse or revoke licences for something, other than for registration or storage purposes, and the periods for which licences are to be issued are still matters to be resolved. However, we are continuing to have discussions with all interested parties, including the HSE, to see how clause 7 might be implemented in the regulations. 
 I have a great deal sympathy both with the sorts of solutions suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South and the comments that a number of other hon. Members have made, including those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North. We need to recognise cultural diversity, but we must be careful not to operate a system that assumes that boundaries around each authority area are like the Berlin wall. Different licensing arrangement could be operating from one authority to another. It is not difficult now for someone to trek down the road and buy an out-of-season product that is thought to be appropriate for a particular community. 
 Many issues must be examined, but there are practical ways forward, and we need to find a sensitive system that recognises that people might get into difficulties, but that those difficulties need to be dealt with without severe punishment. We need a system in which a licence can be revoked or refused, so that we can use the licence as an important part of the correct implementation of other aspects of the Bill to ensure that it bites on those who are issued with licences and that they must abide by them. That will be safer and less hazardous for communities. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Prohibition of importation etc. of fireworks

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bill Tynan: I shall draw attention to some of the relevant issues relating to importation, distribution and storage.
 Everyone will be aware of the blaze at the fireworks warehouse in Liverpool last week. A toy factory caught fire, and when firefighters went to put out the blaze, they found that an adjoining warehouse was 
 storing fireworks. The roof was blown off the warehouse, and the firefighters were not equipped in the first instance to deal with that. I spoke to the gentleman who is the commander of the station, and he expressed concern that the Health and Safety Executive was unaware that the warehouse had been used for storing fireworks. 
 I shall comment on one of the major difficulties of importation. We talk about antisocial behaviour, and the enormous problem of white van sales and car boot sales, but those are all wrapped up in a situation in which containers of fireworks are being brought into the country. It is rumoured that about 10 tonnes of fireworks are coming into the country for a company that does not have adequate storage areas for that quantity of fireworks. At present, a container comes into the country at Felixstowe, Customs and Excise checks to make sure that the contents are as they should be, then it is released to go on its merry way. There is no guarantee that it is going to a proper licensed storage area. 
 When I went to Kimbolton Fireworks, I was impressed by the fact that it uses a disused aircraft hanger. That is a secure and proper place to store fireworks. I understand that, because it is licensed, the HSE pays regular visits to nit-pick. The HSE nit-picks about how the material is stored and what sort of fireworks are there, while containers of fireworks coming into the country are not going to licensed storage areas. The HSE is powerless because the fireworks are not licensed. It does not know where the fireworks are going, and there is no tracking mechanism. Along with noise, that is one of the most important issues that the Bill has to address. 
 We must have a system to prevent unscrupulous retailers bringing fireworks into the country and distributing them to those who are under age through car boot sales or ice-cream vans. The clause is the mechanism to address that. How does the Minister envisage that system operating, because it is essential? I do not believe that there is joined-up thinking between Customs and Excise, the HSE and local authorities on the matter, or that we are ensuring that fireworks brought into the country are being taken to proper storage areas.

Shona McIsaac: My point relates to some of those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. If we are talking about the importation of fireworks, we should consider also the impact of internet and mail order sales from abroad, as well as within this country. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give some thought to that under the Bill.

Melanie Johnson: I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South about those imports that do not make their way to authorised storage, and about the problems of tracking them. Indeed, I discussed the matter extensively with my officials, the HSE and the industry last year, because of my concerns about the issues. I do not want to go into too much detail on the matter, but I can say that my officials have been in contact with the HSE and the British Fireworks Association since then. The HSE is
 well aware of the issue, and is monitoring it on the basis of the systems that were put in place as a result of my discussions last year, including those held with the local enforcement agencies.
 We accept that the broad intention of the powers in clause 9 is to provide advanced warning to enforcement authorities about consignments, and so to facilitate the tracing. We are doing what we can under the existing arrangements to follow that through and, with the Bill, we will be in a better position to make sure that fireworks are appropriately tracked and are only imported and sent to appropriate destinations.

Bill Tynan: I do not want to prolong the argument, and I hear what the Minister is saying, but the HSE did not know that the warehouse in Liverpool that I mentioned was being used for the storage of fireworks. Obviously, there is a failure in how we are addressing the matter. I recognise that an attempt is being made to resolve this major problem, but it is obviously failing at the moment, as my example of the warehouse demonstrates. It is important that, when we move into the firework season, which has been extended and extended, we deal with the matter in a proper and comprehensive way. I urge the Minister to re-examine the current conditions with a view to strengthening them.

Melanie Johnson: I trust that that is what we are doing under clause 9, which recognises that we need more powers.
 It would be deeply surprising if some things had happened of which enforcement authorities were not aware. Even the best enforcement authorities are bound to find something from time to time that comes as an unpleasant surprise, but I believe that we have done all that we can and argued all that we can under the existing legislation. 
 My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for Cleethorpes talked about mail order and internet selling. Those are very difficult issues, and it is difficult to know exactly what conditions we could apply where the source is outside the UK. I respect their concerns, as I believe that we will have to consider these matters to try to find a way of dealing with them. 
 There are, however, facets of mail order, and of internet selling in particular, that go way beyond the issue of fireworks and into questions of what is being bought and sold via the internet and how it is supplied. All sorts of issues relating to health and safety, and other issues, also arise from those sales. We will, however, see whether we can address these issues under the Bill. I should say, however, that only a tiny percentage of current sales are made through those routes. Fireworks are usually supplied legitimately via UK ports and through authorised retailers of one sort or another.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that the amount may be small at the moment, but that it is a good way for people to circumvent the law? I understand that the internet may cause a problem in many instances, but mail order is different: it must come through some form of customs if it is coming from outside the country, and it can be seen.
 My problem with the internet is that sales can be made outside the country but posted inside it. I accept what my hon. Friend says, but I believe that we can do something about mail order.

Melanie Johnson: My hon. Friend may be right about entry into the UK at the ports. Fireworks are often a legitimate product and can be imported—there is no issue about that—but there are wider issues about fireworks in the post. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but fireworks can enter the country and be distributed throughout it in all sorts of ways. We will have to see whether a significant market develops in this area, but my intuition is that consumers will tend to want to buy fireworks locally. That has been the tradition. The increase in internet and mail order sales in other areas has not been mirrored to the same degree in the purchase of fireworks. I do not belittle the problem in any way. I want to find a way of dealing with it, but believe that it is probably one of the most difficult issues that we could face.

Michael Weir: It appears that if we accept clauses 3 to 5, anyone supplying fireworks will have to satisfy themselves that they are satisfying the relevant conditions, whether fireworks are supplied through the internet or by mail, otherwise they leave themselves open to prosecution in the UK. It is perhaps not quite the serious problem that is suggested. There is always the serious problem of tracing them in the first place; that is the real difficulty.

Melanie Johnson: If they are supplied within the UK, the issue is easier to address. Problems arise where they are supplied outside the UK. With internet sales in particular, the source can obviously be outside the UK, and the problem is much more difficult to act on.

Michael Weir: If the difficulty is that the fireworks have been ordered over the internet but supplied from within the UK, the other clauses would cover those suppliers, irrespective of the fact that the order had been placed over the internet.

Melanie Johnson: Indeed, providing that one could ascertain that a sale had been made. An internet website that is linked to a white van parked somewhere in the UK could be difficult to track down. We can imagine all sorts of scenarios in which it would be difficult for the enforcement authorities to act, but I will bear in mind the concerns expressed by hon. Members, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South will. We will consider the topic further if, as we hope, the Bill is eventually enacted.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Selous: I shall briefly raise a couple of points that were raised on Second Reading. Perhaps the Minister can give me some comfort as to what
 could be done about them. The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 are not particularly effective. There is a problem with the inability to hand out on-the-spot fines to those aged under 18. My district council in south Bedfordshire has told me that it cannot take action against offenders unless the offence is persistent, which quite often it is not. I wonder whether that issue could be worked into the Bill or other legislation coming before the House. I should be grateful for any comments from the Minister about how those aspects of current law are not serving us well.

Melanie Johnson: I believe that on-the-spot fines can be imposed on over-18s under one of the fairly recent Home Office Acts; I do not think that it is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. There is an additional defence for suppliers relating to the prohibition on supplying fireworks to young persons that may be introduced by regulations under clause 3. We propose to make on-the-spot fines for the under-18s possible. That would enable us to tackle many age ranges with which current legislation does not help us.
 The 1997 regulations deal only with issues relating to the supply of fireworks, not their use. That may be what the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire has in mind. The Explosives Act 1875 is the current legislation in respect of letting fireworks off in a public place. As I said, I think that we introduced on-the-spot fines for the over-18s following recent Home Office legislation. We will want fixed penalty provision for under-18s, not only for abusing fireworks but for many other forms of antisocial behaviour such as breaking windows.

Shona McIsaac: The hon. Member for Blaby said that it was already an offence to let a firework off in the street but he doubted whether anyone had ever been ''done'' for that activity. I wonder whether other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Minister, received a letter from Coventry city council detailing how Coventry police officers were the first in the west midlands to impose on-the-spot fines for throwing fireworks in the street. That scheme is successful and we should extend it, rather than just having pilot schemes. The council also says that it has a mystery shopper campaign—I presume that that is through trading standards legislation—that has netted several retailers selling fireworks to children, and it has prosecuted for that. Regulations can be effective and I hope that those successes are echoed throughout Britain when the Bill is enacted.

Melanie Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. Some of the pilots have encouraged us to think that on-the-spot fines and fixed penalties will work and will provide a rapid route to penalising those who break the law in that way. The police and other enforcement authorities will find it a useful tool. In relation to the other point made by my hon. Friend, it is important that we recognise that we can take the proposal forward and ensure that it is a success.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 12 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Parliamentary procedure for regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Robathan: This is almost certainly the last time that I—and perhaps anyone else—will say anything in this Committee, so I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South on introducing the Bill and on steering it through Committee, which is not always easy. I am delighted that it has got through its Committee stage. We support any measure that improves the lives of our constituents without unreasonable penalty or spoiling other people's enjoyment. We wish the Bill a fair wind.
 However, we are concerned because this is an enabling Bill. I do not impugn the Minister's motivation; I am optimistic that she will be sensible in introducing regulations. In 1997, the hon. Lady's predecessor, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, introduced regulations by statutory instrument. There is no specific content as yet, but I should like to know what extra powers the clause gives the Government that they do not already have to introduce a statutory instrument.

Ross Cranston: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South on introducing the Bill and shepherding it through the Committee.
 I want to put the Minister on the spot in respect of the regulation-making power: when can we expect regulations?

Shona McIsaac: I echo hon. Members' comments.
 When the Bill received its Second Reading, many of our constituents were excited that the noise nuisance from fireworks would end. I reassured them but explained that the Bill had many stages to get through and there could be problems along the way. However, my constituents still think that because it got its Second Reading, the Bill has become law. In the past couple of weeks, people have been letting off very loud fireworks in my constituency and it is vital that we give some indication of when the regulations will be made. I do not want to go through another autumn having to answer hundreds, if not thousands, of letters from angry, upset and distressed constituents suffering from the misuse of fireworks.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the tone of our proceedings this afternoon. It has been one of the most mollifying experiences I have had in a Committee. It must be something to do with the chairmanship, Mr. Benton. That is enough obsequiousness for today.
 I refer back to clause 2(1)(b), which says: 
''the risk that the use of fireworks will have those consequences is the minimum that is compatible with their being used.''{**w10**} 
That strikes the balance appropriately. Our debate has shown that we are not trying to ruin the enjoyment that many families gain from fireworks, either in public displays or in their back gardens, safely and responsibly. We are seeking to protect everybody who is involved in the industry and in the enjoyment of fireworks. I pay tribute to the way in which the Bill has been drafted, and to my hon. Friend the Member for 
 Hamilton, South for having brought it into being. In closing, can I ask the Minister when the regulations will be ready for consideration?

Andrew Selous: I echo the kinds words that have been expressed about your chairmanship, Mr. Benton, and the comments about the way in which the hon. Member for Hamilton, South has brought the Bill to this stage.
 Can the Minister tell me whether the power to make regulation would be of any help to Coventry city council? We have heard about its application for a byelaw banning the use of fireworks between 11 o'clock at night and 7 o'clock in the morning, which was turned down on the basis that local laws should not be used to address a national problem. That seems to be an eminently sensible byelaw for a local authority to have. The hon. Members for Hamilton, South and for Glasgow, Anniesland made the point that local authorities know their areas and should be able to make sensible byelaws. Can the Minister give me some comfort that the clause will enable authorities such as Coventry city to make such byelaws?

Melanie Johnson: I make the same presumption as the hon. Member for Blaby in assuming that the Bill will successfully conclude its consideration in Committee, and add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South on his stewardship and guidance of it in Committee. He has undertaken a wide range of discussions with all interested parties and has spent much time on the detail that underlies the Bill. I also thank you, Mr. Benton, for your chairmanship of the Committee.
 In response to the question of powers raised by the hon. Member for Blaby, clause 16 allows us to make regulations as negative instruments. Those clauses that require affirmative resolutions will be made that way; they are not necessarily on a par. There is a separate issue, which is relevant to the question of whether we want to have affirmative resolution for every power under the Bill, which is not the case at the moment. That is that some of the safety regulations would have to be made under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Some would be fireworks regulations covering non-safety aspects, deriving from the Bill. The arrangements would be affirmative in one case and negative in the other, so we could end up doubling the amount of consideration of issues in cases in which both pieces of legislation had to be brought to bear on the matter. 
 There is a role for affirmative powers, and we have undertaken to ensure that it can be used on key topics in this instance. It would be helpful if Committee members would indicate in discussions outside the Committee any areas in which they feel strongly that there should be affirmative resolution. I undertake to consider such comments and to declare on Report whether further affirmative powers are needed. I reiterate that the Bill secures regulations under the powers in clauses 1(2) and 14(3) that will now be subject to the affirmative procedure, which they would not have been under the 1997 private Member's Bill 
 introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton. 
 The regulations on consultation and timing will be subject to Government guidelines, under which we have to consult for a minimum of 12 weeks. We shall also consult more generally on the content before that. I cannot promise regulations for this November's fireworks season. By way of consolation to those hon. Members who are disappointed, I should point out that given the lead time for the production of fireworks, most of the fireworks will be imported fairly soon, if they are not already here. We therefore have a reasonable lead-time. We shall endeavour to come forward with the statutory instruments as soon as practicable. Those, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who urge consultation on me and who press me on the time scale, know and appreciate the tension between those two factors.

Bill Tynan: The power exists for emergency legislation to be invoked, which would last for 12 months. In present circumstances, the importation and storage of fireworks is an issue that could be subject to that type of legislation. Would not the Minister consider using such legislation to ensure that companies importing fireworks into the UK should keep them in proper storage areas? Could that part of the emergency legislation be used in that way? It would solve many of the problems, and it would prevent rogue retailers selling fireworks from lorries and ice-cream vans.

Melanie Johnson: There is a procedure under clause 2 for emergency regulations to be made if there is an urgent need to protect the public. I assume that that is the power to which my hon. Friend refers. Those regulations would remain in force for no longer than 12 months. We can consider whether certain areas could be addressed under such emergency provisions, but we must bear in mind that we need also to allow people time to adjust and to make the right arrangements. We must therefore think carefully about what is sensibly covered under emergency legislation. I would like more time to reflect on the detail and, indeed, to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend subsequent to this afternoon's sitting.
 The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire mentioned the need for byelaws. It is a national problem and it will need a national solution. However, some consideration is being given by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to using the provisions of the Noise Act 1996, to ascertain what scope local authorities have to use the powers of that Act. 
 Byelaws could lead to consumers crossing the county, city or borough border to buy fireworks in an area that has no or different requirements. That is what I was saying to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North on the question of cultural diversity and licensing arrangements. Obviously in a small, fairly compact country such as this, and with modern travel, people can easily move from one area 
 to the next. We have to recognise the practical realities of all that in what we are doing. The Bill does not have provision for byelaws and it is important to recognise that.

Andrew Selous: Is it the position that local authorities do not fully understand the legislation that is in place and open to them under the Noise Act 1996 or the powers of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the powers within existing legislation are more clearly explained to local authorities, as I was not clear how we were going to take the matter forward?

Melanie Johnson: It is not a matter for me because the legislation relates to another Department. I understand that it is looking at ways in which more provisions can be appropriately used by councils. Indeed, as with some of the other legislation that is designed to protect local communities through local councils, the take-up and implementation can sometimes lag behind what is available to the councils concerned. Those are not principally matters for my Department or my hon. Friend's Bill. I conclude by saying that I believe that the Bill needs to be used moderately and with a sense of balance and proportion. There are serious issues in our communities relating to the use and abuse of fireworks that need to be addressed. I particularly bear in mind the points that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made about the important issue of noise.

Shona McIsaac: Could my hon. Friend have a word with her colleagues in the Northern Ireland Department, who have brought in a system that is working very successfully to control fireworks? Perhaps some of the good practice from that side of the water can be considered and used here. I understand from Northern Ireland Members that they received many complaints in 2001 about firework misuse, yet after the law was toughened up they did not receive one complaint in 2002.

Melanie Johnson: My hon. Friend sets very high standards for success. I do not think that I would be as ambitious as to aspire to no complaints. We are in regular contact with colleagues in Northern Ireland. I will certainly bear in mind her encouragement to examine their experience of making changes, albeit under difference circumstances. The Bill will make a huge difference to what has become a major problem for our communities. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South for bringing it forward.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 17 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-eight minutes past Four o'clock.